Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J: The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 10.12.2008 [Annexure-E] passed by the Court of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 8642/1995.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners filed the suit against the respondents for the recovery of suit schedule A, Band C properties from the respondents-1, 2 an9- 3 respectively. The matter was set down for arguments on the closure of evidence by both sides. At that juncture, the respondents prayed for an order on additional Issue No.1, which reads as follows:

"Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit is maintainable?"

As the respondents have no common interest in suit schedule A, Band C properties, the Trial Court held that the suit is bad for multifariousness. On holding that there is misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties, the Trial Court, invoking Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC, returned the plaint directing the petitioners to file separate suits against each one of the respondents.

3. It is this order of the Trial Court, which is being assailed before me by Sri Chandan S. Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. He submits that there is no provision for the return of the plaint under Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC. He further submits that the provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC can be passed only if the joinder of causes of action is one suit is embarrassing a party or delaying the trial or causing inconvenience. In the instant case, none of these conditions are present. He further submits that if the plaint has to be rejected, it is only by scanning the averments contained in the plaint i.e., the Court is not required to look into the defence taken in the written statement while examining the maintainability of the suit. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd., & Others Vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express & Others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1828. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted herein below:

11. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the Court exercising the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the Court, mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. In the present case, the averments made in the plaint, as has been noticed by us, do disclose the cause of action and therefore, the High Court has rightly said that the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code cannot be exercised for rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants.

4. He further submits that procedure is only the handmaid of justice. In the instant case, the trial is concluded. The suit is of the year 1995.

After thirteen years, if the petitioners/plaintiffs are asked to file three suits, it would delay the process of recovering the possession from the respondents.

He also takes exception to the conduct of the responde